Why I hate Jojo Moye’s Me Before You

Thank you!!

What’s really disappointing about the book is that the quality of the writing is surpisingly high. (Based on the film trailer, I don’t think it will suffer from the same betrayal of potential – it looks trite and formulaic, where the book is at least witty and occasionally thoughtful.) The problem is that Moyes wrote this book as a fictional response to a real case – that of Daniel James, the young British rugby player who became a quad in 2007 and took his life at Dignitas (with the reluctant cooperation of his parents) in 2008. So, Moyes did not approach this project from the standpoint of taking the authenticity of her developing characters to an internally-consistent conclusion; she was committed to the story’s conclusion before her characters were even conceived. The result was a story that, IMHO, went off the rails about halfway through, as the natural evolution of her characters (and the grossly oversold “romance” between them) gave way to the foregone conclusion of their pre-ordained path.

And while the book enjoyed a fairly compartmentalized success as “chick lit” (you’re actually only the second man I know of who’s read it, and the other did so only out of morbid curiosity after I pointed it out to him), the movie promises to make far broader inroads into public discourse – to the great detriment and aggravation of wheelchair users everywhere, I fear. I’ve been dreading this ever since I heard, last year, that the film was being made, and now it’s upon us. It looks quite a bit worse than I’d imagined, and my imagination doesn’t lack pessimism. But at least it’s inspiring negative reviews – may yours not be the last!!!

Not the book… But your bad arse atituuuuude

Have you considered contacting the author directly? Maybe it’s time she met someone from the community and heard exactly what you think of her book. Authors looooove feedback! You know I really like your life force. You’ve embraced this experience and are flourishing. I can understand why people say you inspire them. I’m not going to say that, but rather you challenge me not to run away, but instead be open to the fullness of life.

A couple thoughts here that i feel compelled to bring up. Yes, I completely share your feelings of frustration with Will’s decision. He is most certainly portrayed as an entitled, stubborn, rich cry baby that cannot cope with the first real tribulation that life throws at him. He is certainly not in the realm of one of my favorite literary characters. But I do not, and cannot, believe (after having read the second book, After You) that this is in any form a celebration of suicide. The second book, mind you much better than the first, basically benchmarks the wake of destruction that Will’s decision left for the people that loved him and how they each try and work through it. I also feel that Assisted Suicide is something that has been such a media hot spot in the last several years and that this book attempts to try and work through the circumstances that lead these people to make this decision. Not quite the best story for those who struggle to understand/agree with Assisted Suicide, but an attempt nonetheless.

I just finished the book, and found your site while google places to write a review. Your opinions are your own, but what exactly do you feel the author doesn’t understand about quadriplegia that was required to write a fictional story? I didn’t think the book assumed all quadriplegics want to commit suicide, but it’s naive at best and denial at worst to assume that the thought never crosses any quadriplegics mind. Someone already mentioned Daniel James. He was young, had money, and chose to end his life at Dignitas when he became a quad. He tried to commit suicide three times prior, but failed. Dating myself with this, but I remember when Christopher Reeve became quadriplegic, and he admitted he thought about killing himself.

But that’s besides the point. There will always be someone that has something to say about anything someone does. The book was a lovely story about finding love where you least expect it and how that changes you. If the vehicle an author uses to tell that story hits too close to home, best to refrain from reading the book.

I found your review after I read the book. I found the book disturbing, and your review articulates better than I could the issues I had with this book. Actually the part of the book that most troubled me was that the character of Will (in my opinion) was the same at the beginning of the book as at the end. What is there for us humans if we do not have hope of seeing some measure of redemption in our short lives now? That Will can only have peace in death seems as short-sighted as a Christianity theology that sells grace as fire insurance with no true impact on the here-and-now. Perhaps a lesson to learn from Will’s fictional life is that we often are surrounded by hope and grace and blessing, but because they do not appear in the form we are expecting we do not see them and thus cannot experience them.

While the book was a disappointment, your blog has not been. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I have enjoyed reading your blog entries.

Thanks so much for this. I’m disabled through severe ME and a wheelchair user, and was surprised when people went out of their way to recommend this book to me. I mean, what message is that sending me??
Some have pointed out that the girlfriend and parents don’t want him to die but respect his position. Then, they protest, the book is not pro-suicide for disabled people but anti-suicide! But that is not the point. In Khaled Housseini’s book, And The Mountains Echoed, there is a character in there who needs round the clock care. Her sister protests that she doesn’t mind caring for her, but actually she’s really tired and worn down. So the sick character goes off in the desert and dies. The carer sister protests and is indignant – but ultimately benefits because she can start ‘living her life again.’ Although the carer protests, it is clear that as the reader we are supposed to think that the disabled person has done the ‘honourable thing’ by dying – and, crucially, the carer benefits from her death.

Same pattern in this book. Although the carer characters protest, we are left feeling as readers that it was ultimately a good thing that he dies because he would never be happy, even with love and money – and the carer benefits from his death after he’s gone. So we’re left thinking, ‘how noble of him to die.’ This is f***ed up.

Imagine the story told from his poiht of view. A lot of newly disabled people – maybe even the majority? – want to commit suicide at some point as they process the grief of their disability. Joni Eareckson Tada is one such person. Her family did not ‘respect her decision’. They responded as any family would when faced with a suicidal relative (disabled or otherwise). They said no. They said they loved her and would not help her to die. She was angry at first but eventually profoundly grateful for them saving her life.

What message is this sending about disabled people? What if the story was told from his point of view? The story very much smacks of being a good account of the struggle it is to care for someone, but not necessarily true from the point of view of most disabled people

In no way am I trying to offend anyone but IT IS A BOOK, A FICTIONAL BOOK. Yes, it is about a man who wants to commit suicide because of his disability but last time I checked, no where did the author or any promoter of this book or movie state that this desire was true for every disabled person or that all disabled people are better off dead. Its about one fictional guy and his own preferences. Everyone goes through hard times, disabled or not, and I admire anyone who pushes through hard times. This movie isn’t a jab at disabled people, its not promoting suicide. Its a fictional love story where in THIS PARTICULAR CASE, the character wants to commit suicide. I’ve read plenty of books about non-disabled people committing suicide and that’s perfectly fine to use as entertainment but make them disabled and there’s a bloodbath. IT IS FICTION, IT IS NOT MADE TO OFFEND PEOPLE. And I have seen PLENTY of comments about how “this shouldn’t be used as entertainment.” WHY THE HELL NOT. Everything else is, abuse, suicide, rape, drugs, all these horrible things are shown in entertainment every single day and no one bats an eye. Everyone just needs to chill and realize this movie isnt about them.

That was very bold of you to say, and I completely agree. You worded it perfectly – how this book is in fact, not an inspirational story or romance at all. I think it’s actually sad how the girl drops her current boyfriend because she’s found real love and then is rejected when there is no actual reason for her lover to die!! Too bad the media is praising it with the new movie release :/

Why has no one commented on how badly written and researched this book is? I work in a library and it is constantly requested so I  thought I would try to read the paperback version, although it’s not my chosen type of reading matter. I won’t go to see the film.

This book is even worse than the E L James “Fifty shades’ series because of the serious content and the way quadriplegia is portrayed. It’s just not credible. And the author has made SO many mistakes in the text and plotline. I think it’s also a very irresponsible book as it is so poorly researched.

Early on (page 2), in a bedroom scene with Lissa, Will kisses her goodbye. She’s propped up in bed leafing through travel brochures. “He leans over the bed to kiss her. She smells warm and perfumed and sexy. He inhales the scent from the back of her hair …” Where’s that? Is there a front and back of hair? Does the author mean the back of her head? The nape of her neck? Who knows?

Why does Will ask Mick the security guard about the weather? Does Will’s London flat not have windows he can look out of and see that it’s “raining cats and dogs”?

London pavements aren’t “mirrored” (page 4). That would be indecent.

The accident scene is in the Prologue which is dated 2007. Lou enters the scene in 2009. Why do people think it’s set 30 or 50 years ago?

Her family struggle financially yet the mother “keeps the heating on all year round” whilst “Dad is always opening windows”. Come on! That’s just stupid and unrealistic. “Apple juice … was too expensive”. Turn the heating off then! The Mother, who apparently never sits down and is in constant motion, would generate her own heat and wouldn’t be a “martyr to the cold”.

I’m not sure that the “Job Centre” (as it was then) is allowed to offer pole dancing and adult chat-line supervisor jobs. Perhaps someone can confirm this?

The woman leaving the house before Lou’s interview was wearing “white slacks”. Slacks were a 1960’s clothes item. Made of Crimplene with elastic from the trouser hems to under the arch of the foot. They went out in the 1960’s. And Crimplene was a sweaty non-breathable material which only lasted into the early 70’s.

She wouldn’t have called her dad “Bernard” (page 32). The author might but this section is written in the first person from Lou’s perspective.

Mrs Traynors “cross on a chain around her neck” is actually called a crucifix necklace. Why doesn’t the author call it by it’s rightful name?

Why is Lissa described as having caramel coloured skin? This term usually describes mixed-race/bi-racial people. Is that what Lissa is?

If Will so enjoyed the cut and thrust of his job why didn’t he continue with it? As he says himself his “brain wasn’t paralysed”. He had the financial means to work from home and get equipment to help him to do so. It’s unrealistic to think that a determined, intelligent, ambitious person wouldn’t have done that. But that wouldn’t have worked with the authors plot device of needing to have him wanting to end his life would it? Did he get counselling after the accident? That would have helped too. What happened to the motorcyclist who ran him down? Was there a court case? We don’t know. All unrealistic.

Lou picks up one of the “labels of medication” (page 42). Maybe she picked up one of the bottles or vials of medication?

Why is Will long-haired and unshaven? He has Nathan to attend to his personal needs. What subject is Nathan studying when he’s not on duty? It’s never mentioned. And yet he has spare time to go on trips out and holidays? Completely unrealistic!

Why would you stick your handbag on your shoulder? (page 48). That’s not what you do with your handbag. That would be uncomfortable and risky. You might put the strap of your shoulder bag over your shoulder though!

The glass shards from the broken photo frames would have been a better way to commit suicide. A rusty nail left exposed? Unrealistic that such a thing would have existed in  such a carefully designed and moneyed household.

Where was Mrs Traynor when the photos were smashed. Lou had made the guests Lissa and Rupert coffee and Mrs Traynor some tea. So she was still in the house and must have heard the noise of breaking glass.

The author is obsessed with blinking. It’s usually an involuntary reflex action that we perform millions of times a day. Does she mean someone closing their eyes slowly; deliberately? That’s not the same as blinking. Or winking for that matter!

Will goes for his 6 month check-up and the Consultant says at the end “So we’ll see you in 3 months time Mr Traynor”.

Why is Lou wearing ballet pumps in snowy weather? Ridiculous!

Nathan tells Lou (on page 131) that the sister, Georgina, had left, skidding off in her car just as he arrived yet there she is again in the house on  the next page (page 132) sobbing down the annexe corridor. No mention of her returning to the house. Plot error?

What is that position Lou gets into lying sideways on her bed with her legs against the wall. Is that even possible? And why?

Page 175 when the two sisters are arguing “If you think I’m helping you now … you’ve got another thing coming”.

The calendar is laminated? I’ve not seen a laminated calendar I don’t think. That must be difficult to write on.

Which day is Lou thinking about when they’re at the concert and she says “I remembered how his former workmates had looked at him that day”? There’d been no meeting of his workmates together with Lou and Will  mentioned previously.

Lou seems to rub her nose a lot. Then later says she rubs it when she lies. Was she lying when she said she enjoyed the classical music concert then? That doesn’t make sense and is an irrelevant detail unless it is bring used as a plot device to show she’s lying. And she doesn’t seem to be lying about enjoying the concert. So why bother to put that detail in?

At her birthday meal why is Lou folding smoked salmon in her fingers and feeding Will like that. No fork? It comes up again and again the finger food feeding. Breaking off pieces of sandwich etc. Like feeding a  child or a dog its treats. It’s unhygienic and undermines Will as a human being. He’s not a child or a dog.

On page 266 Lou has peeled potatoes and is then “rinsing the chopping board under the sink”. Really? Where the bins and cleaning products are kept? Perhaps the author meant under the tap at the sink? Or in the sink perhaps?

Will should have had 24 hour live-in care. His parents, Nathan and Louise are not there all the time. Is that legal to leave a disabled person un-attended? What if a fire broke out? Shouldn’t his parents, as prime carers, be sued for negligence for not providing their disabled son with the 24 hour care he needs?

Mr Traynor’s situation is unrealistic. He leaves his son unattended when he goes out to see his mistress. He goes to see his mistress when Mrs Traynor goes away for the night to see her sister, or stays in London due to weather, or work, situations.

Will may have been in the house/annexe alone a lot of the time as both parents, nor carers stayed in the house overnight consistently. Will would have been alone and unattended the night it snowed but luckily Lou stayed overnight. What about all the other times when both parents (maybe unknowingly) left him alone at night?

So Mr Traynor could have left his wife at any time. He was never consistently there.There was no need for him to wait for Will to die in order for him to be free of his marriage. He was never really around or much use looking after Will anyway so his excuse that he was needed whilst Will was still alive is nonsense.

Finally the scene at Dignitas. “… Mr Traynor sat on one side if it, (the bed) Mrs Traynor on the other … Georgina was seated on a wooden chair in the corner….” Will says ‘I want to talk to Lou.Is that ok?” Mrs Traynor and Georgina leave the room. THAT LEAVES MR TRAYNOR STILL IN THE ROOM WITH WILL AND LOU!! Didn’t any of them notice he was still there? Will he be there with them in the film? Utter rubbish. Unbelievable that this wasn’t picked up in the editing.

So how has this book managed to get published with all these mistakes? And turned into a film as well?  It is an insult to the readers’ intelligence. But if people want sentimental, unrealistic situations and charscters, romantic claptrap,Chick-lit and drivel then here it is. With sequels too! I must get writing. Perhaps I can churn out a sentimental pot-boiler or two? Watch this space!

“Best to let them revel in their contempt, because, at the end of the day, that’s all they have.”

Considering the people this comment is obliquely directed at, your arrogance is astounding.

Once again there is no Will. Will is a vehicle for propagating the prejudice of the author. The author holds physically diminished life in contempt, as your snide comment above indicates you do also.

(But you do realize that the physical diminishes as you go forward right ? For everybody ? So why not just quit while you are ahead ? Best avoid the off chance that you might undergo some sort of “suffering”, don’t you think ? heh, heh)

Evolution will speak. Those of little grit will disappear from the gene pool and from the market of ideas and debate. Fine. Ee will be done with their whining.

But we do want to protect those, the vast majority, who choose to live — whether that be for thirty years, one year, one day, or just one more hour.

Feel the Love

Gordon from Montreal

My wife wanted to watch this film so we sat down together. About half way in I was so bored I picked up some book to read while my wife kept her focus on the film. It’s just a waste of time IMO as that kind of ending sort of imply all the protagonist did was for nothing, which means everything the film made us spend time watching was useless and meaningless. It irritated me so much and that disable guy, like some other review mentioned, did not inspire me at all. No sympathy. None.

I’ve always imagine myself becoming disable ever since I read the Manga about wheel chair basketball “Real”. It’s a really good read and I highly recommend it to everyone. In my mind I wouldn’t waste my time moping around. There’s so much to do, so much to train, and I have a daughter to take care of.

Screw You before Me as a film.